Thanks,
in the discussion of dl-668 it was hypothesised that the test was wrong,
having been derived from the faulty dl-208, more on that later.
Jeremy
Evren Sirin wrote:
>
> > Agenda for TEST subgroup meeting
> ...
> > 6: Test with 1 pass
> > overview and discussion
> ...
> > - hard dl tests
> > dl-666
> > dl-668
>
> I want to share the experience we had with our reasoner Pellet on these
> test cases (dl-66x in general). Pellet cannot pass these test cases
> right now. The ontologies in these test cases were originally OWL DL and
> then a script converted the files to OWL Lite in a way that makes
> reasoning really very hard for us (There are too many GCI's that we
> cannot absorb). Since OWL Lite does not have complementOf, the script
> creates two restrictions to define complement relation. Knowing how the
> script worked, I've written another script that does the reverse
> transformation. For example, the following description
>
> Class(a:C10 complete restriction(b:P.16 maxCardinality(0)))
> Class(a:C10.comp complete restriction(b:P.16 minCardinality(1)))
>
> is converted back to something like this
>
> Class(a:C10)
> Class(a:C10.comp complementOf(a:c10))
>
> After this transformation, these test cases become trivial for Pellet.
> We still don't report success for these test cases but we know that we
> can pass any dl-66x test after this transformation and believe they are
> all ok. I thought this information would help the discussion about these
> test cases.
>
> Evren
>
> ---
>
>> Evren Sirin evren@cs.umd.edu
>> Graduate Research Assistant
>> Computer Science Department
>> Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
>> Phone: (301) 405-7027, Fax: (301) 405-6707
>
>
>
>
>
>